LSAT Discussion Forum

June 2008 LSAT, Section 2 # 26

Hi, I was hoping for a little help on this question.
Looking back, I think I understand why D is correct but I don’t understand why C is not correct. If the only place where the parts could be purchased is no longer available wouldn’t that be enough to prove that the parts couldn’t be purchased (or are difficult to obtain) and therefore completely new sirens would need to be installed? I know since D is the correct answer so I’m definitely missing a key piece of information or misinterpreting something. I’m just not sure what!

Thanks

One issue with answer choice C is that it specifies that the old company was the only company that sold the parts(another store might since have opened). The bigger issue, however, is that we need to find an answer choice that allows us to be sure that the replacement parts will be difficult to obtain, thus leading to new sirens and justifying the newspaper's conclusion that the public will be safer in future severe weather.

Furthermore, even if that company was the only company in the area that sold those parts (and the company has since gone out of business), that does not automatically mean the parts will be difficult to obtain. Maybe you can buy them online just as easily. Granted, if (C) is true, the conclusion is strengthened. However, this is a Justify question, which requires that the answer we choose prove the conclusion.

Hi,

I'm having a little trouble understanding why D is correct over answer E. I was able to eliminate the rest quite easily, but than I got stumped on these last two answer choices. I can't seem to differentiate between these two answers and what makes E incorrect, they both seem to be reasonable to me. Any insight into this is much appreciated!

Thanks
-Anoop

Hi Anoop,

Thanks for your question!

Let's take a look at the argument from a structural perspective:

• Premise: Replacement parts difficult to obtain Purchase new sirens
  Premise: Purchase new sirens Public will be safer
  Premise: Local company has gone out of business
  Conclusion: Public will be safer

The question asks us to Justify the conclusion that the public will be safer. From the first two premises, we know that the public will be safer if replacement parts are difficult to obtain. Will they be? Perhaps. All we know is that the local company from which parts are purchased has gone out of business. For us to justify the conclusion, we need to establish that if the local company has gone out of business, then replacement parts will indeed be difficult to obtain:

Justify: Local company out of business Replacement parts difficult to obtain

This prephrase agrees with answer choice (D).

Answer choice (E) does not prove that replacement parts will be difficult to obtain: all we know is that they will be less reliable. It's entirely possible that such parts are relatively easy to obtain; the reliability of the replacements has no bearing on the issue at stake. If you consider answer choice (E) to be a contender, you are assuming that the government will automatically decide to purchase new sirens just because the replacement parts for the old ones will make them less reliable. We have no reason to make this assumption.

Does this make sense? Let me know.

Thanks!

Yeah, I think I understand it now. I may have confused this question to be an assumption instead of a justify. But your explanation really helped!

Thank you!

Hi, I'm trying to nail down the difference between the necessary and sufficient assumption questions. I understand why answer choice (D) is correct, as it guarantees the conclusion. Would answer choice (C) be more* acceptable if this were a necessary assumption question? I know the "what-if" scenarios are kinda tricky, but in my mind, the local company no longer being there is necessary for it to be more difficult.

Actually, in this case I think answer D would still be the correct answer if this were a Necessary Assumption question (which we usually just call an Assumption question). Answer C still has the problem of "in the area". Why does that matter? I think answer C strengthens the argument some, but not much, and it is neither sufficient nor necessary for the conclusion to be correct. Perhaps they can get the parts shipped in from far away at low cost?

Some answers will work for both types of questions, and this looks to me like one of those. C is a loser in the Assumption category, whether Sufficient or Necessary. To check it, try negating it, and see if it ruins the argument for you. Being in the area doesn't necessarily mean the parts are easy to obtain - don't bring in that additional assumption to help out the answer!

Hi PowerScore Staff,

For some reason, I picked E. I read the question in a bit of a rush, and got spun around. If the replacement parts were not reliable, isn't it true that the public would be safer during the weather if the new sirens are used?

Is E an assumption answer?

Thanks

I have a feeling that A is incorrect but I am having trouble pinpointing why exactly it is so.

A) A doesn't seem to use the information about the local company that D does use and it seems odd that the testmakers would include info in the stimulus and then completely disregard it. They might as a distraction technique but I still can't understand how this is wrong. The newspaper says that safety would be enhanced if new sirens are installed so if the paper is right then you change the probable would to will.

B) we can't know that the local company was correct

C) "in the area" but they could have gotten the sirens from a different place

D) The local company went out of business and for the newspaper to be correct that means that it was difficult for the government to get replacement sirens so they installed new sirens.

E) even if they are less reliable it doesn't necessarily mean that the government won't use them because they could still be replacement versions.

Thank you!